But voters in this country still overwhelmingly support voter ID laws and don’t think they discriminate.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 72% of Likely U.S. Voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote.

Before the involved UN members even begin any such investigation, their own electoral practices should be closely scrutinized. ALternatively, we could simply pick one of them (KSA, for instance) and declare we will adopt their laws. How can they complain?

"In Mexico, there is a general electoral census. Any citizen of age 18 or greater must go to an electoral office in order be registered into the electoral census. Citizens receive a voting card (credencial de elector con fotografía), issued by the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) that must be shown to vote in any election. The voting card also serves as a national identity document."

So it seems our neighbor, Mexico, requires every citizen show their Voter ID which also serves a s national identity document.

I believe the UN declared that they have authority over us, and put that into writing. Since we are "Members," Case closed.

That is the drum beat of the counter-rebellion by the Roman Emperors of the Old World against the people of the New World. From 1776 to today has only been a brief wait to soon be erased by Obama I as he overnight erases the US military hegemony.

I saw someone make the case that because the democrats have maxxed out the black vote, they are now going to go full out to make hispanics the new victim group (that they will protect). That at least makes more sense than claiming voter ID will supress voting.

To vote, you must prove your identity and address. You have three options:

Option 1Show one original piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.

Option 2Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.

Option 3Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you (both of you will be required to make a sworn statement). This person must have authorized identification and their name must appear on the list of electors in the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person and the person who is vouched for cannot vouch for another elector.

Well, Obama has done nothing in the way of amnesty. He preferred to spend his political capital on the Obamacare mess. Now he has to step and do something to show he cares. I'm betting the vast majority of Mexican-Americans in this country legally could give two figs about whether illegals can vote. We'll see.

OF COURSE its going to suppress ILLEGAL hispanic voter turnout, and THAT IS THE POINT.

As far as the UN is concerned, that academic debating society matters not.

Nobody whines about needing ID to buy alcohol, even among the poor.

Relatively speaking, the act of voting is more important than buying a 40 oz.

But the dems keep the false 'disenfranchised voter' meme going anyways. It allows the dead and the illegals to provide them with the extra votes they need to remain competitive. Without them, they lose, big time.

Anyone interested in seeing their political views reflected in the law. So, me, for example.

I'm not saying popular opinion makes voter ID requirements constitutional -- they're obviously constitutional regardless of WHAT people think about 'em. I'm just observing that if the UN opts to take a stand against the American people, it will become less popular with Americans.

DT2012 - garage gets off on the red meat that Media Matters and Obama provide on a daily basis. It's a combination of circle-jerk and marching orders. Garage is a dutiful "soldier" for the cause. Too bad he doesn't possess his own brain.

Or at least shut it down by using our Security Council veto on everything, and having our ambassador make a speech every day ending in [and perhaps consisting only of] "The United Nations Must Be Dissolved"?

Seriously, it outlived its usefulness in 1991 when the USSR collapsed.)

(Contra Surge, when "popular opinion" ceases to matter at all we've got despotism.

Popular opinion can be wrong, definitely - but you need a lot more than "it was wrong before" to explain why we should just do What The Self-Appointed Experts demand at all times.

The idea, after all, is that this is government "for, by, and of the people".)

Garage doesn't care about election integrity, as long as his side wins

Yah, we Alinskyites just went into vote fraud hibernation mode in 2010, and now we're ready to SPRING into action again with all our voter fraud in 2012! (We just skipped a year to make it look like we didn't cheat every election). I forget what Alinsky Rule this is.

I can understand the theoretical reasoning behind disenfranchisement through an ID. But, when applied to the real world and the myriad things any adult needs a picture ID for that theory quickly collapses. So, you don't drive. Ok, fine. Have you ever bought alcohol, cigarettes, fireworks, used a credit card, received welfare, entered a state or federal building? You need an ID to do all those things and if it's the cost factor that is disenfranchising the very poor then I have a perfect solution. When a statewide voter ID law is passed, waive whatever fee an ID costs for the very poor AND to quell the cries of he/she works three jobs so can't take the time to get an ID (which if they were doing, means they actually should be able to pay the ten dollar fee for an non-drivers ID...or have a drivers license to get to work, but that's neither here nor there) have an ID station at the polls. You can't vote in that election, but if you take the time it would have taken to vote to fill out the ID form and have your picture taken and an ID will be sent to the address you provide a month later so you can vote in the next election.

I am beginning to think that Obama and his handlers have decided to use a scorched earth policy:

If they are going to be thrown out, they are going to leave things so messed up and chaotic that they can start screaming from day 1 that the GOP hasn't made everything better yet, so everybody had better vote Democrat in 2014 and 2016.

In any transaction that involves exchanges of things that have value we don't bat an eye at someone requiring ID. I suppose this tells us that the Democrat party doesn't believe a vote has any real value. Maybe that should read "my vote" doesn't have value.

"... In any transaction that involves exchanges of things that have value we don't bat an eye at someone requiring ID. I suppose this tells us that the Democrat party doesn't believe a vote has any real value..."

It's not that insomuch as it is one more hurdle they need to overcome to commit voter fraud.

ID is required for the most basic transactions and no one bats an eye. Require it to prove you're the person on the voter rolls and Democrats go apeshit.

Revenant, I'm not so sure that UN opposition to Voter ID would lead to American opposition. It may even be the reverse.

I think you missed my point.

Americans already overwhelmingly favor voter ID requirements. If the UN decides to use that to attack us for "racism" or some similar lame-brained complaint, my expectation is that this will increase American opposition to the United Nations, not American opposition to voter ID.

Don't argue with Garage! He schooled me that the Wi constitution reads that ID isn't required. Funny, the judge ruled that ID would be legal, just not with this law. And when I read your constitution, it mentioned being a resident, but it said nothing about not needing to prove your a resident.

So garage KNOWS, better than the judge, and better than my own 2 eyes, that voter ID is just racist suppression.

On this issue particularly, liberals have won, so far, by repeating a massive non sequiter every time the issue is raised

75 percent of Americans: "We'd like to ensure the integrity of the ballot box by requiring people to show IDs before they vote to prove they are who they say they are."

Garage, and other liberals: "There is scant evidence of voter fraud!"

So what? It's still a perfectly reasonable precaution that has the beauty of protecting both sides equally. It's not a partisan measure.

What the 75 percent need to start replying is: "Thank God there is such scant evidence. But we'd like to take the precaution anyway, and unless you can prove there is a constitutional problem with it, we'd like to implement it. Indeed the fact that you are fighting it so fiercely and with constant resort to non sequiter arguments, makes us want voter ID even more."

Board a plane, buy alcohol, enter a Federal building, cash a check, drive a car, withdraw cash from a bank, check into a hotel.

Yes and no. Technically you don't need a photo ID to board a plane. You need one to get through security. ID's can be falsified though, they don't verify who you are. I buy alcohol, and sadly, I never have to show ID. Federal building, yes. Again, ID's can be falsified, they don't verify who you are. You don't technically need an ID to drive a car either. Irrelevant though, none of these are considered a right in the constitution.

Human rights and fairness aren't a matter to be decided by majority vote.

No, they're not. Isn't that why we still have sovereign nations and jurisdictions? The UN is subject to the prevailing whims of an increasingly anti-US base. No treaty lasts forever. The UN body no longer represents the body politic of the world.

Your position is also equivalent to saying I like this and I don't like that. But, then that's just you.

This is a pointless argument anyway, the kind of argument we Americans let distract us from serious issues.

If the concern is voter fraud, there are much more important steps to take to ensure transparently fair elections. If the concern is encouraging greater participation in elections, the entire process should be re-evaluated.

The point is, just because something hasn't happened to YOU, doesn't mean you don't prepare against it. Do you wait to buy locks for your house until after you've been robbed? Of course not, because you know that other houses have been robbed. Democracy is fragile and one of the ways it is fragile is that elections can be, and have been, stolen. That's a historical fact for which there is much more than "scant evidence."

Have there been stolen elections? Yes. Have there been stolen elections in the United States? Yes. Is there anyone out there with a motive, means and opportunity to steal an election? Yes. Will requiring Voter ID make it harder for such people to steal an election? Yes.

What else needs to be said?

Don't get diverted into silly arguments about where you have to show an ID, and the sophistry of some liberal claiming, "well technically you don't need an ID to board a plane."

That doesn't matter. What matters is protecting the franchise, which deserves and needs protection.

Well the third party in question is made up of a bunch of nations who don't even allow elections

It sure looks to me like it's your writing skills that need improvement. You probably should have written "is made up in part of a bunch of nations..."Anyway, the important thing is that you've learned something. :)

Really don't value the UNs opinion. Or the UN for that matter.

In that case, you don't need to worry about what they say, and obviously your opinion won't be changed by whatever they find. Under the circumstances, I can't believe you wasted your time commenting on it.

The UN has no authority in this matter. We are talking about their opinion, whatever it may be. My position is that there is no reason to fear their opinion; in fact, it will be interesting to hear what the international community thinks.

If you're really concerned about the "sanctity and integrity of the vote," you should be concerned about a LOT MORE than voter ID. In terms of the "sanctity and integrity of the vote," voter ID is small potatoes.

If your boarding pass has a different name than what is on your ID, guess what, you don't get on the plane.

Guess what, photo ID's can falsified! How the hell does that dude at security know who you *really* are? We live in a free and open society, anyone with a will can game the system if they are really determined.

The fraud happens after the votes are cast. But funny Republicans are never really worried about that. Wonder why. I'm looking at YOU Kathy Nickolaus!

Garage. Actually the TSA does not require photo id to pass through security, just two pieces of id with one from a govt agency. Airlines are stickier,howver,and i doubt you will get the boarding pass without photo. That said i would expect one in two hundred tsa agents know the rule and you would likely have a hell of a time getting through. Tsa agents take themselves very seriously and confronting them with a change in procedure will cost you a lot of time speaking with unbearably obstinate people. They like to pretend to look at you then look at the photo and then back at you. I dont think it matters if you are in the picture or no because it is all an act anyway.

The fraud happens after the votes are cast. But funny Republicans are never really worried about that. Wonder why. I'm looking at YOU Kathy Nickolaus!

Alleging vote fraud at Kathy Nickolaus, heh?

Of course, you dont have any facts to back up your accusations.

As far as voter ID goes...you cant function in society without one. If you only intend on voting once, and live here legally, there's nothing to worry about. And for those (like garage) who think voter fraud doesnt exist, simply look at James O'Keefe latest video posting at Breitbart.com where he poses as dead people and gets a ballot without even showing an ID...in a state that has a voter ID law.

Its hilarious how Democrats rip this voter ID law out of one side of their mouth, and then out of the other side of their mouth rip the state for not releasing the names of people with concealed carry permits.

The only reason to be against voter ID is because you want to be able to make it possible to fraudulently vote.

You COULD forge one, but honestly it would be easier just to break into the lockbox and stuff the ballot box with phony ballots. The normal means of obtaining a phony DL that can pass inspection is through identity theft -- you apply for one under a real person's name.

If you would at least grant me that no one should be allowed to vote twice, how can we prevent even that from happening?

No one should be allowed to vote twice. The best evidence we have suggests that Voter ID laws do essentially nothing to prevent that type of voter fraud.

You answer seems to to be "it doesn't happen and if it does it's not important." Fair?

The type of voter fraud that Voter ID laws aim to prevent is incredibly rare, based on the best evidence. On the other hand, Voter ID laws apparently lead to lower levels of voter participation. That leads me to wonder if Voter ID laws do more harm than good.

So, to be clear, all voter fraud is wrong, but we need to find a solution to the problem that doesn't have unwanted consequences. (Since you're a scientist, you understand this principle.)

BTW, if we can't even agree on what fraud is, then this exchange is pointless.

There is no disagreement about what constitutes fraud. But the Voter ID law is the equivalent of a crackdown on crime that targets kids who steal candy from the 7-11. Our time and resources should be put to use where they can be most effective.

"There is no disagreement about what constitutes fraud. But the Voter ID law is the equivalent of a crackdown on crime that targets kids who steal candy from the 7-11."

And this passes for intelligence in the liberal community?

It is funny and instructive to watch and listen to liberals gasp and wheeze to promote this silly meme that voters don't need to show identification in order to vote.

And some of the whoppers and nonsense are worthy of our approval, in the fictional realm, of course.

Tell us , I heart Willard, more of your brilliant reasons why democrats need not show ID for voting. Maybe you'd like to extend this stream of consciousness to minors so they don't have to prove they are old enough to buy alcohol.

You can't make this stuff up. But if you wait for it, some dumb liberal will supply the comedy.

If Voter ID laws are the first and best solution that you can imagine to address the realm of electoral fraud issues, then the American educational system has seriously failed us.

Well...the only party in America trying to do anything about any kind of electoral fraud issues is the Republican Party. So, I guess, the "American education system has seriously failed" the left in this country.

If a Democrat wants to step forward and make a serious proposal to help stop election fraud, Im all ears. But I will be waiting a long, long time.

Here's my prediction. As the result of the DOJ's ludicrous attack on the Voter ID laws of Texas and South Carolina, the US Supreme Court will toss out Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and all states covered by that section will be allowed to go forward with the same liberty and equal protection enjoyed by all the other states in the union.

The Supremes already signed off on Indiana's voter ID law. The Justice Dept has sway over states subject to the VRA until the Supremes throw that out too. The statute of limitations runs out at some point over what happened 50 years ago.

A law that makes it harder to vote fraudulently resulted in fewer votes being cast?

Huh. Weird.

Seriously, though "fewer votes" is what one would expect when it becomes harder to vote illegally. That is neither an unpleasant consequence nor an unintended one.

Now, if legitimate voters were disenfranchised -- by which I mean "were incapable of obtaining ID and then barred from voting", not "didn't feel like getting an ID" -- then that would be unfortunate. But thus far none of the lawsuits against these laws have been able to identify any such plaintiff. Probably because no such people exist in America. Homeless dudes living under bridges can easily get ID, for pity's sake.

Nobody believes the story that it disenfranchises people or places an undue burden on them

Actually everyone agrees it does. It's net result can only prevent people from voting. It's the way you like it, and you should just come to terms with it. You believe a big government solution to a non-existent problem is the right thing to do.

I Heart Willard said:"Evidence suggests that Voter ID laws lead to fewer people voting. :("Did you ever think, that if there are people voting who shouldn't be before voter ID is adopted, maybe it works?

Not surprising that Americans overwhelmingly support protecting the voting process by showing voter ID. Those opposed to showing voter ID when voting reveal themselves to be cynical, corrupt dem hacktivists. Of course the dems oppose voter ID because they have thrived at cheating in elections. Cheating is a huge edge to have in a close election.

John Fund wrote an excellent book about voter fraud in the USA:"Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy".Here is the introductory chapter from that book:old.nationalreview.com/comment/fund200409130633.asp

Here is an article by Fund about Wisconsin and the Voter Fraud Agenda:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704671904575193930226978178.html

So non-libertarians think that people who aren't supposed to vote ARE supposed to vote?

Heck, garage -- I admit to thinking sometimes that libertarians are more logical than the rest of the public, but I wouldn't go so far as saying we're the only folks in America who believe in the law of identity. :)

To take my freedom away the government has to correctly identify me by compulsion of many many laws.. but to renew that power through the ballot box I'm not required to identify myself as eligible to grant it?

I've decided to encourage Garage to keep denying potential cheating and voter fraud while supporting efforts to shutdown voter ID laws. If there is enough integrity left in the system, denier's like him will encourage Republican voters to over react and to counter "imagined" corruption. Since there is no corresponding history of such fraud on the right, garage's cause will lead to a partisan effect in favor of Republicans.

I am not sure if it actually leads to fewer people voting, or fewer votes. Much more likely the later, which is not unintended. It turns out that people who can be identified who turn out to have been actually deprived of voting through voter ID laws and the like are actually many fewer than the number of fraudulent votes found over the years. Actually, almost non-existent. And, for those few, it usually turns out that they were given the opportunity to vote provisionally, which is available in many, if not most, states these days.

So, what I think that we have here is a misuse, or mischaracterization, of statistics. Surprise. Surprise.

Oh, and Patrick, you forgot to include:5. People who are not alive, are not at least 18 years of age, or do not otherwise exist, and6. Non-humans. This mostly applies to household pets, but there is nothing to keep it from also applying to barnyard animals and the like, should the need for votes be great enough.

I suspect I missed some other categories of traditional voters who aren't actually technically qualified to vote, but have in the past.

What bothers me here is AG Holder's strategy here. The only states where this would work are also states where the Democrats are not going to win, regardless of how many fraudulent votes they can manufacture - with the possible exception of LA. We are talking deep south here. The feds have this right because 50 years ago, the Democrats running those states were actively excluding blacks from voting. (And, you could ask the question why the Democrats are the party that has cheated at voting for almost 150 years now - first with disenfranchisement, and now with over-voting?)

So, what is Holder's game here? Why is he doing it? is it just because he can? Or, is he playing a deeper game?

At my apartment there is a sign on the front door to the office that says, "Photo ID required to view apartments" and something about Fair Housing, and that hit me like a hammer made out of ABC gum, pencil, and eraser.

I know you're not actually serious, but I'll respond because other people might be curious.

Libertarians are concerned, first and foremost, with individual liberty and the freedom to form voluntary associations with others. This means keeping the government absolutely minimal; at the extreme end of the spectrum, some libertarians argue that the government should be funded entirely with voluntary payments.

Democracy and voting is a system by which people determine what the government will do. I.e., it is a means to an end -- legitimate only inasmuch as the voters are asking the government to exercise legitimate powers in defense of the liberty and natural rights of the governed. So the answer to the question "who should vote" is ultimately a pragmatic one, not an absolute one; the group of people who should vote is the group of people who will use the government's power appropriately. A dictatorship that allows freedom of speech and bans slavery would be preferable to a democracy that allows slavery and censors all dissident views.

2. They have shown a willingness to violate the rights of others (e.g. no thieves, murderers, or rapists)

3. They aren't among the governed (e.g. no non-residents).

4. They've already voted.

If you can think of a way to prove a would-be voter is an adult non-criminal voting for the first time *WITHOUT* identifying who the person is, you be sure and let me know. Until then I will continue viewing the ID requirement as the (much) lesser of two evils. :)

It's hard for me to believe that all the "poor and disfranchised" Obama and Co worry about can be admitted to government social security offices, or whatever offices that deal with destribution of government benefits, without some form of photo ID.

I might be wrong, since I was never in need of the goverment benefits, but in my experience of dealing with goverment agencies, one can't even enter government building without showing photo ID

There is no "right" to vote for President. That right is given by the states, and after it is, the privileges and immunities of the US Citizen must be upheld by the state (88 US 162). NON US Citizens have no rights other than those afforded "people" within the jurisdiction of the US with respect to equal protection of the laws. There is NO LAW that says aliens can vote. Illegal aliens have no rights, other than to be put on a plane and sent back to their home country. Allowing those that are not US Citizens to vote violates the sovereignty of US Citizens. I thought this was a "law blog".

He swore no such thing. The proper oath was never done in public. Why do you think they did it again in private, with no press watching.? If the first was legal, then why the second? Obviously the "Constitutional scholar", and the Chief Justice deemed it insufficient. I, on the other hand, swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution when I register to vote. I am doing just that by, contesting the nomination of Obama as D party POTUS nominee of Fla., in Leon Co. Circuit Court. He is not a natural born Citizen as required by A2S1C5, US Constitution, since he was born British of a British subject father.

Roberts KNEW he was ineligible-- that's why they flubbed the oath. The "law prof" watches the constitution she supposedly teaches burn from her ivory tower in the sham of a "law school". She should be ashamed that she did nothing.

Actually everyone agrees it does. It's net result can only prevent people from voting. It's the way you like it, and you should just come to terms with it. You believe a big government solution to a non-existent problem is the right thing to do.

Yes. "Proving your identity" is now a "big government solution".

Odd, since those who love big government the most are most consistently opposed to it.